Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758935AbYJWUAO (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:00:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753993AbYJWT7v (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:59:51 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:45566 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753971AbYJWT7v (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:59:51 -0400 Message-ID: <4900D7AE.3010505@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:59:42 -0400 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Schermerhorn , Roland McGrath Subject: Re: wierd new config options References: <20081023181818.GA25430@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20081023181818.GA25430@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 652 Lines: 18 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Why is UNEVICTABLE_LRU and option? Is there any rason to turn it off or > is this just to confuse users? Since the swapout code itself is already configurable with CONFIG_SWAP, I do believe we want to be able to config out the unevictable LRU code. I guess it could be argued that maybe CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU should just be folded into CONFIG_SWAP... -- All Rights Reversed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/